That's why they call it 'acting'

Basically, it comes down to whatever works for you. There are some actors who can totally fly by the seat of their pants, and others who need to practically kill themselves in preparation. I don't find either invalid, I just go by the results.

It is really good publicity, though, to have actors brag about their boot camp, largely because a) it makes the audience feel like they can understand the craft of acting, and b) it makes the audience think the actors actually work for a living, as a lot of people still think acting is easy money.

Shouldn't a professional actor be able to pretend she knows how to fly? I pretend to know things I don't all the time. Isn't it more important for the writer to know how to fly, so he/she can write believable dialogue about flying. I wonder if the production paid for the writer to get flying lessons?

Oh, and Scott, acting is easy money, at least once you get a part. What makes acting a hard way to make a living is the sheer amount of people who are good at it, competing for a limited amount of work, much of which doesn't pay good money. Unexceptional children master the "art" of acting all the time. Even dogs have been known to be extremely competent actors. It's just not that hard to be a good actor. Not like an engineer, or a writer, or a teacher, or a professional athlete, or even a good pilot. People have every right to want to see actors who get paid millions to play make believe spend more than the month or two it takes to shoot a movie, preparing for it. People forget though, that Hillary Swank and Richard Gere aren't getting paid millions to act, they're getting paid to be stars, and sell the movie.

I normally find David Mamet a frustrating blowhard in writing, but his book "True and False" on the craft of acting is really interesting, and takes apart the myth of "preparation". But then again, some actors truly believe it works for them...so to each their own.

I actually find it fascinating when actors do the "boot camp" thing. At the very least, it gives the cast more interesting stories to tell when they do press junkets. I do notice that movies tend to only have "boot camps" for exciting skills- flying, race car driving, martial arts- in which as noted, some of us mere mortals pay for the privilege of instruction. Given the preponderance of actors that hew to Method and give interviews about "really trying to inhabit my character," I think the acting boot camp could be usefully extended. To use Hilary Swank as an example, "The Core" could have been a much better movie if everyone involved had first been sent to "science boot camp."

Boy, that 1st comment on TLRHB's post is brilliant. Just brilliant. I bet that guy studied acting.

And learning the mechanics of flying a plane won't do anything for a convincing line delivery. I guess it's just a case of Little Hilary needs to fly.

JE: I hear her real name is Jonathan Lapper.

Surely Hilary Swank must have some sort of introduction course to flying before they start filming. I assume the sets use very accurate interiors for the aircrafts so she would have to learn the basics of flying a plane and where all the controls are, wouldn't she? Without any flying experience, she wouldn't know what to do. The writer can tell her to shift a gear but she has to know HOW to shift a gear or whatever they do on a plane, wouldn't she? She is acting after all, isn't she because she is not REALLY flying a plane but merely pretending like she is which is called ACTING. So I just thunk that TLRHB's comments are just him having a crack at actors because they get paid more than he does and he likes to devalue their profession to boost his own ego and justify his own existence.

Nice post and bringing to my attention of That Little Round-Headed Boy.

The funniest thing about a lot of films is how directors cast professional actors who just cannot act. The whole method acting thing is, I suppose, to give acting as an occupation some semblance of credibility -- "If they can't act, at least they die trying!"

"The important thing is that they get someone else to pay for something."

- one of your other readers wrote that it is good PR. I think so too -- it's all about the star power or whatever sleight-of-hand that is supposed to work.

This is a good time to remember the famous change of words between Dustin Hofmann and Laurence Olivier on the set of Marathon Man. Hoffman had not slept for days in order to portray his character accurately, to wich Olivier said "why not try acting? It's much easier". Dont know if the story is true, but it's a funny story.

I really liked what he had to say about Depp, and how - whatever preparation that guy does - first of all, he keeps it to himself, and he also seems to leave lots of room for the imagination. I have never been a fan of Hilary Swank, so admittedly I'm biased. I will say this: Judging from the reviews of Amelia (and I haven't seen it - although I will) - many people seem to feel the film doesn't work. It's a letdown. The spirit of Earhart not captured, whatever. So her comments here (Swank's comments) to me come off as a bit defensive, almost like: But if you knew how much WORK I did on this! So I must let you know how much WORK I did. (This is my main complaint about Swank's work, and I know I'm in the minority - but I always SEE her work. She always wants me to know how HARD she is working.) Having been an actress, having sat in many an acting class, where someone has just done a scene, and it just didn't come off well - and the actor begins to tell the teacher, "I spent a month in a brothel to prepare to do this scene ... I worked with an accent coach for four weeks to do this scene ... " - I recognize that kind of behavior - and the fact of the matter is: all of that preparation doesn't MATTER if it's not seen in the work itself. If it doesn't make a difference to how you play the part, then you might as well have a little fun and see what, oh, MAKE-BELIEVE will do for you.

Again, I haven't seen Amelia, so I can't say - but if all of that work doesn't show up on the screen, then I think she needs to really look at what exactly she IS working on, to do these parts - and maybe she could use her time more wisely.

I actually do love to hear about actors' preparations - but for some reason, her comment rubbed me the wrong way. Especially the "I'd be fired immediately" comment. Oh gimme a break Hilary. No you wouldn't be.

You just jumped the shark, Jim. You're assessment of Swank's motivation to play Earhart is disgusting. It might be 100% accurate, but you throw it out there as if it's fact. And not to mention your whole-hearted generalization of "rich people." You couldn't even temper that with a simple modifier, "many" perhaps?

I've begun to read your blog in the same spirit as I watch O'Reilly -- in horrified, transfixed disbelief.

JE: Please re-read -- you've entirely misrepresented what I wrote. I didn't say free flying lessons were Swank's MOTIVATION for playing the character! I said it was a perk. Many actors will tell you of the side benefits of playing certain parts -- from getting to keep certain wardrobe items to learning skills that they enjoy for many years afterwards. As for the "Rich people are weird about money" line -- it's meant to be funny (because it's true), an allusion to the very famous anecdote about Hemingway and Fitzgerald, in which Fitzgerald supposedly said: "The rich are different than you and me," and Hemingway replied, "Yes, they have money." So, it really wouldn't have worked to put the modifier in the first sentence. However, it's there in the next sentence: "Some will spend..." You're free to read (or not read) this however you like, but please pay closer attention to what I actually wrote before you go misrepresenting what I said.

I'm not sure if it matters, but Spencer Tracy did go to boot camp. And Clark Gable not only went to boot camp, but was a trained Air Force gunner.

In general, I agree with George's comment: in a movie like Amelia, where, presumably a certain amount of verisimilitude is expected/required, it makes sense for the lead actor to take flying lessons.

So did Sean Penn have gay sex in order to play Harvey Milk? Did Brad Pitt learn how to carve swastikas in foreheads to play Aldo Raine? Did Anthony Hopkins murder and cannibalize his victims to play Hannibal Lechter? In other words, where would it stop if all actors felt like Ms. Swank?

I guess that means Hilary Swank will never have a role on a Star Trek movie.

But, but, I want believable characters! If the film is not too parable-esque, and if it wants to be "realistic" then I really need those realistic personality traits that would maybe only come by being submersed in the lifestyle the actor is imitating.

Please place a big red asterisk next to all posts from folks who haven't worked seriously for several years at an acting career. I respect their opinions, but in that context. Sorry folks. Everyone can't do it, not well. -Actor in his sixties

I took your challenge and re-read your entry. I still don't believe that I, in any way, misrepresented what you said. True, you used the phrase "one of the perks" and said "some" in reference to wealthy spending habits. I still fail to see the humor in your broad stereotype, though the Fitzgerald/Hemingway quote is amusing.

But, in re-examining your post, I also noticed that you precede "one of the perks" with "no doubt." How are you so sure? Perhaps Swank is mortified of flying.

Richard Hourula asks: "So did Sean Penn have gay sex in order to play Harvey Milk?" Obviously not (though who I am to speculate on the man's level of dedication?), but as evidenced by his performance in "Milk" he most likely studied hours of video footage and recordings of Harvey in order to fully embody the role. That's as much a form of boot camp as flying lessons, no?

And Jim, it's really not what you say that irks me, it's just the acerbic tone of much of your writing that could use a bit of. . . diplomacy? That's 'thoughtful writing.'

JE: OK, but I have to say I think you're bringing the "acerbic tone" to what I've written here, not me. (Don't assume this blog -- or these comments -- should be read like others you may have encountered. I don't encourage, and didn't start, the flame war. See satirical video here: http://bit.ly/16NZLH .) I'm stating a fact about the legitimate costs associated with actors' preparations -- they can be paid for by the production, or deducted by the actor as a legitimate work expense. You can approve or disapprove, but those are not inaccurate statements, and I'm using Swank as a hypothetical example without claiming to know who paid for her flying lessons on "Amelia." My shark-jumping lessons, on the other hand, are not tax-deductible (said self-deprecatingly, not acerbically). But if, as you say, you have Bill O'Reilly's voice in your head when you read something here, that's going to skew the tone significantly, and there's not much I can do about that. I disavow any knowledge of that tone -- because it's not mine.

Morgan Freeman says that he never does any of this kind of preparation. He just reads the lines.
It's definitely not a Method approach, but nobody's ever accused him of being unconvincing.

Guys, guys, I think we're all missing the far more important, deep-soul-searching question: Is Hilary Swank hot?

I think you and TLRHB are really on to something here, and I'd expand it out to include writers and directors as well as actors. When I read this part of Larry's piece:

It also seems to downgrade the "playing" that should be central to the very definition of acting. What Swank is saying is that acting is not "playful" at all. "It's hard work, people! Serious stuff. I'm not getting paid millions to shoot toothy grins at Richard Gere. I actually had to prove I was worthy of the role by learning to fly!"

the first thing I flashed on was There Will Be Blood, as Swank's rather overwrought, "look how hard I'm working!" attitude was what emanated from every shot of that film for me. Even if TLRHB had his tongue firmly in cheek when he wrote the above, it still seems like a workable critique of a whole school of filmmaking whose ethos seems based around self-serious, masochistic 'realism.' This is not to undercut your points at all-- as I said, I agree with both of you-- but if this way of thinking gets praised at the directorial level, and showered with awards, it's hard to blame an actor for getting swept up in the conventional critical wisdom.

Thanks for the link-up, Jim!

By the way, I'm sure you agree that there is only one true 'Amelia': The one by Joni Mitchell.

JE: Oh, "Amelia" (the movie). It was just a false alarm.

Willem Dafoe once said something like "I don't see the appeal of method acting. To me, playing make believe is what makes acting fun."

Like a previous poster said, I don't think you should really judge a performance by method, but by results. Still, most training they put actors through seems like "Why bother?" do we ever see Hilary Swank actually flying a real life plane in Amelia, and it just wouldn't do to have it be her flying double? Would we just KNOW, by the look on her face in non-flying scenes, that she can't fly?

This is nothing against, say, Raging Bull, where every ounce of DeNiro's hard work in training (and not so hard work in fine French restaurants) is on display. But I mean, as an example, why train your action star in Kung Fu if you're just going to use quick cuts to disguise his lack of expertise anyways? Why not just show him how to fake a few moves just before the cameras roll? If the training cannot be shown on film, and in some cases focuses on an area of expertise that is impossible to show cinematically, then why bother?

In the end, it's just pictures and sound. The only time I really care about HOW something is done is when it comes to Jackie Chan. If he's not really doing it, he's cheating. Everyone else, I could care less how they got those images on screen.

Perhaps O'Reilly was hyperbole. And perhaps I should have refrained from my original comment until after my morning coffee. For that, I apologize.

I am, however, keen to satire, and I sense none of it in your original post. I've been reading your blog (and posting comments) for many months, and I'm familiar with your tendency to engage in sardonic discourse.

But I'm baffled as to why so many of your entries feel like attacks. At times, you appear to be mining the interwebblogosphere for tidbits, quotes, and commentary to fuel some minor issue with mild vitriol. Why so little inspiration, so little praise? But this is all conjecture, a perception founded in persona. I'm sure you're a swell guy in person.

So, in closing: I suspect that many of our most beloved cinematic performances would have been lacking were it not for dedicated research. That's my beef (along with a side of potatoes on your characterization of the wealthy. I know many that enjoy a comfortable lifestyle and none of them fit the profile of a misanthropic miser). Who among us isn't, after all, "weird about money"?

Very well said!

Allan Dwan had the actors of THE SANDS OF IWO JIMA (1949) put through a week of Marince Corps boot camp, by a real Marine drill instructor.
Montgomery Clift spent three months at an Arizona dude ranch, learning cowboy skills before RED RIVER (1948). Howard Hawks was impressed.
This sort of thing happened in Old Hollywood, too.

I have no idea if it really helps performances.

I've been a professional actor for thirty years, and my opinion on training and prep comes down to this: You have to look like you know what you're doing.

Think about how many old movies you've seen where the "gunmen" hold their pistols with their palm over the hammer and fling their hands when they shoot like they're trying to throw the bullets out of the barrel.

If you are going to play a shooter, you should know how to shoot.

On the other hand, I don't think I need to go to boot camp to act like a soldier. I've known lots of soldiers and I know how they act. And I wouldn't need flying lessons to act like a pilot. But if I was playing a cowboy, I'd learn how to ride a horse.

Basil Rathbone was an accomplished fencer. Errol Flynn had never held a sword until someone first handed him one on a movie set. When you watch Captain Blood or Robin Hood, can you tell the difference?

JE: Beautifully, concisely put: "You have to look like you know what you're doing." That's it in a nutshell.

I don't get the mockery of sending actors to boot camp. It's as though the assumption is that it's all about phony egotism: I got a taste of what it's like to be a real soldier. Actually, from what I understand, sending actors to boot camp is simply an effective way of getting them prepared. And unless the war picture is completely and deliberately unrealistic, like Inglourius Basterds (did I misspell that right?), then preparation is necessary. The actor needs to know how to hold a rifle, the ranks, and so on. Obviously back in the Spencer Tracy, Clark Gable days, a lot of actors served for real. Today if a major actor signed up and went to Iraq or Afghanistan it would be headline news.

I think her comment wasn't about acting in general, but acting in a biopic and portraying a real person whose sole existence was dedicated to flying. Of course she needed to know how to fly, because her job is to get into the mind of a specific, historical person, not an improvisational fictional character.

De Niro, for example, spent several months hunting in the wild for the role in Deer Hunter. That's what great actors do, they become the character by absorbing the same environment their character existed in, in order to relate to that experience better.

What then is the great actor to do when asked to play Julius Caesar? Or George Washington? Or Hitler? Those environments don't exist anymore.

How many years did Anthony Hopkins spend in solitary confinement preparing to play Hannibal Lector? And how many people did he eat?

"What then is the great actor to do when asked to play Julius Caesar? Or George Washington? Or Hitler? Those environments don't exist anymore"

Huh? Historical films are the ones where actors tend to do the most research and preparation for. Especially these days, when everyone thinks they're an expert on historical accuracy. They could visit historical sites, or read diary entries or talk to someone that knew a deceased person if possible. Any number of things.

And while Hopkins obviously didn't need to know what human flesh tasted like, he DID research the role (as he does all of his roles), and based some of his performance on Manson.

I'm not getting the point of this discussion. Can an actor get by without preparation so long as they're convincing, of course. But that doesn't mean the people that prefer to are being redundant.